On the Nature of a Christian Church
It is obviously incumbent on the members of any community, whether civil or sacred, to acquaint themselves with its constitution and design; without this, they can neither adequately enjoy the privileges, nor properly discharge the duties wloich their membership brings with it. Such persons are held more by feeling than by principle; a tenure quite insufficient, as a bond of religious connexion.
It is admitted that as in the human frame, so in the system of divine truth, there are parts of greater and less importance; and the man who would put the principles of church government upon a level with the doctrine of the atonement, and represent a belief in the former as no less essential to salvation than a rehance upon the latter, betrays a lamentable ignorance of both. Still, however, although the hand is of less consequence to vitahty than the head or the heart, is it of no value? Will any one be reckless of his members, because he can lose them and yet live? So because church government is of less moment to spiritual and eternal life than faith in Christ, will any one abandon it as a vain and profitless subject? Whatever God has made the subject of revealed truth, should be guarded on that account, from being considered as too frivolous to deserve our jlttention. It will probably be contended by some, in apology for their neglect, that the New Testament has laid down no specific form of church government, and that where we are left without a guide, it is useless to inquire if we are following his directions. If by this it be meant to say, that the Lord Jesus Christ has left us no apostolic precept or example, which is either directory for our practice, or obligatory upon our conscience, in the formation of Christian, societies, nothing can be more erroneous. It might be presumed a priori, that a matter of such moment would not be left so unsettled, and we have only to look into the Word of God to see how groundless is the assertion. It is true that we shall search the New Testament in vain for either precedent or practice, which will support all the usages of our churches, any otherwise than as these usages are deduced from the spirit and bearing of general principles. These alone are laid down by the Apostles, but still with sufficient precision to enable us to determine whether the Episcopal, the Presbyterian, or Independent form of church government, be most consonant with the mhid and will of Christ.
What is a Christian church?
The woi-d church signifies an assembly. In the New Testament it invariably applies to persons, not to places. It means not the building in which the assembly is convened, but the assembly itself. It has an enlarged and also a more confined signification in the Word of God. In some places it is employed to comprehend the aggregate of believers of every age and nation; hence we read of the “general assembly and church of the firstborn,” and of the church which “Christ loved and purchased with his blood.“*” In its more confined acceptation, it means a congregation of professing Christians, meeting for worship in one place; hence we read of the church at Rome, Coiosse, Philippi, &c. These are the only two senses in which the word is ever employed by the sacred writers; consequently all provincial and national churches, or in other words to call the people of a province or nation a church of Christ, is a most gross perversion of the term, and rendering the kingdom of Jesus more a matter of geography
* Acts XX. 28.
than of religion. The sacred writers, when speaking of the Christians of a whole province, never employ the term in the singular number; but with great precision of language speak of the churches of Galatia, Syria, Macedonia, Asia, &c.
A church of Christ, then, in the latter or more usual acceptation of the term, means “a number of professing Christians, united to each other by their own voluntary consent, having their proper officers, meeting in one place for the observance of religious ordinances, and who are independent of all other control than the authority of Christ expressed in his word.” This company of professing Christians may be few or many in number, rich or poor in their circumstances, and may meet either in a mean or magnificent building, or in no building at all. These things are purely adventitious; for provided they answer to the above definition, they are still to all intent and purpose a church of Christ.
I. The members of the church should be such as make a credible profession of their faith in Christ; or in other words, such as appear to be regenerated by the Spirit of God, to have believed in the Lord Jesus for salvation, and to have submitted themselves in their conduct to the authority of his word. To these the Head of the church has limited the privileges of his kingdom; they alone can enjoy its blessings and perform its duties: and to such the Epistles are uniformly addressed, Romans i. 7. Cor. i. 2. &:c. If these passages are read, it will be found that the members of the first churches are not merely admonished to he saints, but are addressed as such: which is a circumstance of great weight in determining the question upon proper subjects of fellowship. But who is to judge in this case? It is generally thought the church; for although no instance can be brought from the New Testament in which any one of the primitive churches can be proved to have exercised this power, yet as it is a voluntary society, founded on the principle of mutual afiection, it seems reasonable that the chiu*ch should judge of the existence of those quahfications which are necessary to the enjoyment of communion. The very act of obtruding upon them any one without their own consent, whether by a minister or by elders, is destri?ctive of one purpose of christian association, — i. e. the fellowship of the brethren. Nor is the power of searching the heart requisite for those who exercise the right of admitting others, since -ve are to judge of each other by outward conduct.
II. This company of professing Christians must meet in one place for the observance of religious institutes. A society that cannot associate, an assembly that cannot assemble, are perfect solecisms. When, therefore, a church becomes too large to communicate at one table, and divides to eat the Lord’s supper in two distinct places of worship, there are two churches, and no longer one only.
III. These persons must be formed into a society upon the principle of mutual voluntary consent. They are not to be associated by act of civil government, by ecclesiastical decree, by ministerial authority, or by any other power than that of their own unconstrained choice. They are to give themselves first to the Lord, and then to each other. No authority whatever of an earthly nature, is to constrain them to unite themselves in fellowship, nor to select for them any particular company of believers with whom they shall associate. All is to be the result of their own selection. Parochial limits, ecclesiastical divisions of country, together with all the commands of the ministerial authority, have nothing to do in regulating the fellowship of the saints. The civil power, or the power of the magistrate, when employed co regulate the affairs of the church of Christ, is manifestly out of place. It is as much at a man’s own option, so far as human authority is concerned, to say with whom he will associate in matters of religion, as it is in those of philosophy, learning, or pecuniary help, to decide who shall be his fellows.
IV. A chu:ch of Christ has its scriptural officers. Here two questions arise: — First, How many kinds of officers does the New Testament mention? Secondly, How are they to be chosen? As to the kinds of office bearers in the primitive churches, there can be neither doubt nor difficulty with any one who will impartially consult the Word of God. With all that suuplicity which characterizes the works of Goi, which neither disfigures his productions ^*ith what is excrescent, nor incumbers thei>? with what is unnecessary, he has institutef? but two kinds of permanent officers in hi*- church, bishops and deacons; the former «o attend to its spiritual affairs, and the latt*^ to direct its temporal concerns. That th<^e were but two, is evident, because we ha’G no information concerning the choice, qj.’<alifications or duties of any other. The bislfops of the primitive churches correspond exactly to the pastors of modern ones. THt bishop, elder, and pastor, are only differfflt terms for the same office, is evident from Acts XX. 17, compared with the 28; Titus i. 5, 7, and 1st Peter v. 1, 2. “They are called bishops, which signifies overseers, because they overlook the spiritual concerns, and watch for the souls of their brethren,” Acts xx. 28, 1st Tim. iii. 1. Pastors or shepherds, because they feed the flock of God with truth, Ephes. iv. 11. Rulers, because they guide the church, Heb. xiii. 7. “Elders, because of their age, or of their possessing those quahties which age supposes,” Tit. B i. 5. “Ministers, because they are the servants of Christ and the gospel,” Ephes. vi. 21.
The Deacon is appointed to receive and distribute the funds of the church, especially those whith are raised for the relief of the poor. All other kinds of officers than these two, are the inventions of men, and not the appointment of Christ; and nhich, by intending to add splendour to the kit.ffdom of Jesus, have corrupted its shnplicity, destroyed its s])irituality, and caused it to symbohze whh the kingdoms of this world.
On the mode of electiijg i»em to their office the Scripture is sufficiently exphit, to justify the practice of those denominations lilo appeal to the sutfrages of the people. If the iw-ts of the Apostles be studied ith care, a book which seems given us more for the regulation of t^clesiastical practices, than the revelation of thtological opinions, we shall find that nothing wa done in the primitive churches without the co-operation of the members; no, not even icheyi the apostles thejnselves were present. Even the election of a new apostle was made by brethren and not by the ministers exclusively. * The deacons were chosen by the same persons, f The decrees of the council at Jerusalem were passed also by them, and went forth with their
* Acts i. 21, 26. t Acts vi.
name.* From hence we infer, that although no case occurs in the inspired history, where it is mentioned that a church elected its pastor, yet it so entirely accords with the practice of the church in other respects, that an exception in this particular would have been a singul anomaly which nothing could justify but the plainest and most express provision. The decisions of reason harmonize on this subject, with the testimony of revelation; for, if we have an undoubted right to choose our own lawjer, or physician, hfw much more so, to elect the man to whom we shall intrust the care of our souL If we should feel it hard to be obliged to take the medicines of the parish doctor whether we liked them or not, how much more oppressive is it, that we should be obliged to hear the opinions of the parish minister, who may have been appointed by the patron for other quahfications than those of a spiritual nature, and whose sentiments may be as much opposed to the doctrines of the gospel, as his conduct is to its holiness. What I are we to be obliged to look up to such a man as our spiritual instnicter because some profligate, who has the living in his gift, chooses to introduce him to the vacant pulpit?
V. A Christian church with its office bearers, is complete within itself, for the observance of
* Acts XV. 23.
divine ordinances, and the exercise of discipline; and is subject to no authority or tribunal on earth. This is the Congregational or Independent form of church government, and it is thus denominated, to distinguish it from the Episcopal, or*he government of a bishop, and from the Presbyterian, br the government of the churches by the authority of their assembled pastors and elders. No trace of any foreign control over a church of Christ, can be found in the New Testament, except sych as was exercised by the apostles as the representatives of Jesus Christ.
VI. Such a church is bound by the authority of Christ in their associated capacity, to observe all the institutes, to obey all the commands, and to cherish all the dispositions which relate to their social union, in the time, order, and manner in which they are enjoined by Christ Jesus. They are to assemble in public on the first day of the week for prayer, praise, hearing the Scriptures read and expounded, celebrating the Lord’s supper, and exercising mutual affection. They are also bound by divine authority to maintain the purity of the church, by receiving only such as give evidence of true faith, and by excluding from their communion all those whose life is opposed to the doctrine which is according to godliness. They are to live in the exercise of mutual submission and brotherly love, and ever to consider themselves amenable to the tribunal of Christ, for their conduct in their church capacity.
Such is a very concise view of the nature of a Christian church.
Hence what might be termed the general principles of the New Testament on this topic, are, the all-sufficiency and exclusive authority of the Scriptures as a rule of faith and practice in matters of religion; — the consequent denial of the right of legislatures and ecclesiastical conventions to impose any rights, ceremonies, observances, or interpretations of the Word of God, upon our belief or practice; — the unlimited and inalienable right of every man to expound the Word of God for himself, and to worship his Maker in that place and manner which he deems to be most accordant with the directions of the Bible; — the utter impropriety of any alliance or incorporation of the church of Christ with the governments or the kingdoms of this world; — the duty of every Christian to oppose the authority which would attempt to fetter his conscience with obligations to religious obsei-vances not enjoined by Christ. These are general principles which should lead the thinking Christian to separate from all national establishments of religion whatever.
It is not enough to plead the authority of example, or of mere feeling, as a reason for any religious service. These are insufficient pilots on the troubled ocean of theological opinion, where opposing currents, stormy winds, and concealed rocks, endanger the safety of the voyager to eternity. Our compass is the word of God, reason must be the steersman at the helm to guide the vessel by the direction of the needle, and that mariner is accountable for the consequences, who is too ignorant or too indolent to examine his course.
Away with that morbid insensibility which exclaims, “It is of no consequence to what church or denomination a man belongs, provided he be a Christian.” Such a spirit is a conspiracy against the throne of truth, and is the first step towards a com])lete abandonment of the importance of right sentiments. Admitting that error is to be measured by a graduated scale, who will undertake to fix upon the point where harmless mistakes end and” mischievous ones begin. Every thing relating to religion is of consequence. In the temple of truth not only the foundation is to be valued and defended, but every point and every pinnacle.
It does not necessarily follow that an inquiry into the grounds of oiu’ conduct should imbitter our temper. The mist of passion obscures the splendour of truth, as much as fogs do the effulgence of the solar orb. Let us contend earnestly for right principles, but let it be in the exercise of right feelings. Let us hold the truth in love. Then do our sentiments appear to greatest advantage, and Mke gems set in gold, when they are supported by a spirit of Christian charity.
*’ O divine love! the sweet harmony of souls! the music of angels! the joy of God’s own heart! the very darling of his bosom! the source of true happiness! the pure quintessence of heaven! that which reconciles the jarring principles of the world, and makes them all chime together! that which melts men’s hearts into one another! See how St. Paul describes it, and it cannot choose but enamour your affections towards it; — “Lote envieth not, it is not puffed up, it doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, rejoiceth not in iniquity; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.” I may add, it is the best natured thing, the best complexioned thing in the world. Let us express this sweet harmonious affection in these jarring times; that so, if it be possible, we may tune the world into better music. Especially in matters of religion, let us strive with all meekness to instruct and convince one another. Let us endeavour to promote the gospel of peace, the dove-like gospel, with a dove-like spirit. This was the way, by which the gospel at first was propagated in the world. “Christ did not cry, nor lift up his voice in the streets; a bruised reed he did not break, and the smoking flax he did not quench; and yet he brought forth judgment unto victory.” He whispered the gospel to us from mount Sion, in a still voice; and yet the sound thereof went out quickly throughout all the earth. The gospel at first came down upon the world gently and softly, like the dew on Gideon’s fleece; and yet it quickly penetrated through it; and doubtless, this is still the most effectual way to promote it farther. Sweetness and ingenuity will more command men’s minds, than passion, sourness, and severity; as the soft pillow sooner breaks the flint than the hardest marble. Let us “follow truth in love;” aftd of the two indeed, be contented rather to miss of the conveying a speculative truth, than to part with love. When we would convince men of any error by the strength of truth, let us withal pour the sweet balm of love upon their heads. Truth and love are two of the most powerful things in the world; and when they both go together, they cannot easily be withstood. The golden beams of truth, and the silken cords of love, twisted together, will draw men on with a sweet violence, whether they will or no.
“Let us take heed we do not sometimes cail that zeal for God and his gospel, which is nothing else but our own tempestuous and stormy passion. True zeal is a sweet, heavenly, and gentle flame, which maketh us active for God, but always within the sphere of love. It never calls for fire from heaven to consume those that differ a little from us in their apprehensions. It is like that kind of lightning, (which the philosophers speak of) that melts the sword within, but singeth not the scabbard: it strives to save the soul, but hurteth not the body. True zeal is a loving thing, and makes us always active to edification, and not to destruction. If we keep the fire of zeal within the chimney, in its own proper place, it never doth any hurt; it only warmeth, quickeneth, and enliveneth us; but if once we let it break out, and catch hold of the thatch of our flesh, and kindle our corrupt natm*e, and set the house of our body on fire, it is no longer zeal, it is no heavenly fire, it is a most destructive and devouring thing. True zeal is an ignis lamhens a soft and gentle flame, that will not scorch one’s hand; it is no predatory or voracious thing; but carnal and fleshly zeal is like the spu’it of gunpowder set on fire, that tears and blows up all that stands before it. True zeal is like the vital heat in us that we live upon, which we never feel to be angry or troublesome; but though it gently feed upon the radical oil within us, that sweet balsam of our natural moisture, yet it fives lovingly with it, and maintains that by which it is fed; but C that other furious and distempered zeal, is nothing else but a fever in the soul.
To conclude, we may learn what kind of zeal it is, that we should make use of in promoting the gospel, by an emblem of God’s own, given us in the Scripture, those fiery tongues, that upon the day of Pentecost sat upon the Apostles; which sure were harmless flames, for we cannot read that they did any hurt, or that they did so much as singe an hair of their heads.” *
* Cudworth’s Sermon before the House of Commonsj 1647.